Random only partially Land Cruiser related thoughts

[Markarian421]

Various thoughts after a weekend in part spent off-road (in my FJ):

Every time I drive my Heritage Blue FJ I think I should get a Heritage Blue Land Cruiser. People complement the color all the time, one said he'd never seen it on an FJ before (only the final US year special edition had it). Then I drive past a Trail Dust Land Cruiser (off road no less) and think I should get that instead. (Pic from the dash cam.)

It's really nice having E load tires on a bad road with lots of pointed rocks and not having to worry about it.

Related, my FJ with E load Duratracs averaged around 18.5 mpg on this trip. It will annoy me if I get a Land Cruiser and it does worse than that while also having a 1 gallon smaller gas tank.

Bronco Raptors are too wide to be on most off-road trails. Or maybe just any roads.

From the dash cam:

 

[MSLCFE]

I miss my FJ!

 

[trek805]

Dont expect a LC to get much better than 18 mpg as a tank average. I think most people who are being honest are getting around 19 mpg. Especially if you put bigger tires etc.. on it

 

[Nor Cal Cruiser]

14.5 mpg driving like a grandma on 35's.

 

[jenos96]

Dont expect a LC to get much better than 18 mpg as a tank average. I think most people who are being honest are getting around 19 mpg. Especially if you put bigger tires etc.. on it

Reeaaalllly depends on your driving environment. Expect abhorrent economy in cities like Tucson. Expect great performance on country/state highways (40-60mph with few stops). Expect another dip in expected economy on high site interstates (70mph+). I get 17-18, 21-23, and 19-21 respectively

 

[Markarian421]

Reeaaalllly depends on your driving environment. Expect abhorrent economy in cities like Tucson. Expect great performance on country/state highways (40-60mph with few stops). Expect another dip in expected economy on high site interstates (70mph+). I get 17-18, 21-23, and 19-21 respectively

That's similar to the FJ in overall trends. This trip (getting there and back) was mostly local highways and there's where it does best. Things really plummet on the interstate due to aerodynamics (or a lack thereof) just as with the Land Cruiser.

The Land Cruiser's unexpectedly poor mpg (vs. Toyota's early claims of ~27 mpg) and resulting range would be the only thing keeping me from putting E load tires on it. I really wonder what went wrong between that 27 mpg prediction and what we ended up getting. I wouldn't care so much about the mpg if they hadn't put in a fuel tank for something they expected would get 27 mpg.

 

[Markarian421]

VENTURA COUNTY SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAM 1 "So Others May Live"

Further off topic: we were in Joshua Tree on Monday Veterans Day which was a free day in the national parks. The local search and rescue folks were gathering donations at the gate, we ended up talking to one of them for a short while about the FJ!

 

[jenos96]

That's similar to the FJ in overall trends. This trip (getting there and back) was mostly local highways and there's where it does best. Things really plummet on the interstate due to aerodynamics (or a lack thereof) just as with the Land Cruiser.

The Land Cruiser's unexpectedly poor mpg (vs. Toyota's early claims of ~27 mpg) and resulting range would be the only thing keeping me from putting E load tires on it. I really wonder what went wrong between that 27 mpg prediction and what we ended up getting. I wouldn't care so much about the mpg if they hadn't put in a fuel tank for something they expected would get 27 mpg.

My uneducated guess would be that the battery ended up tuned more towards power in the end.

Ive harped on this elsewhere but I still can’t fathom why they didn’t hatch-mount the spare and use the extra space for more fuel and more cargo space and/or clearance. Just such a bizarre choice especially since the LC250 rear end isnt very attractive

 

[DaChronisseur]

For what it's worth, I put E rated 33s on ours and had fuel economy slip to 21mpg from 22.5. It gets driven on back roads and 60mph highway almost exclusively.

 

[fmPro]

That's similar to the FJ in overall trends. This trip (getting there and back) was mostly local highways and there's where it does best. Things really plummet on the interstate due to aerodynamics (or a lack thereof) just as with the Land Cruiser.

The Land Cruiser's unexpectedly poor mpg (vs. Toyota's early claims of ~27 mpg) and resulting range would be the only thing keeping me from putting E load tires on it. I really wonder what went wrong between that 27 mpg prediction and what we ended up getting. I wouldn't care so much about the mpg if they hadn't put in a fuel tank for something they expected would get 27 mpg.

Curious on where Toyota made early claims of ~27 MPG. I've watched Toyota closely for a few decades and never heard them release ANY info like that (incl weights, dimensions, etc.) before production starts.

 

[Markarian421]

Curious on where Toyota made early claims of ~27 MPG. I've watched Toyota closely for a few decades and never heard them release ANY info like that (incl weights, dimensions, etc.) before production starts.

2024 Toyota Land Cruiser MPG Lower Than Expected, Still Beats V-8

 

[fmPro]

Wow, I think I'm going to call B.S. on C&D. I can't yet find this on C&D website, but in Aug '23, they say: "Toyota won't release fuel-economy estimates until later this year."
( 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser Is Cool, Affordable, Yet Honors the Original )
On their first drive in July '24, they quote the final/official ratings.
Being that the Limited Tacoma (AWD hybrid) is rated at 20/24/21 and is 500# lighter, I can't see Toyota suggesting LC would get 6 MPG higher combined, 28+% ( ! ). Toyota has no record (a long one) suggesting unrealistic economy numbers, especially on their hybrids. That it is higher than lighter Tacoma is kind of amazing.

 

[TrailWhale]

Wow, I think I'm going to call B.S. on C&D. I can't yet find this on C&D website, but in Aug '23, they say: "Toyota won't release fuel-economy estimates until later this year."
( 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser Is Cool, Affordable, Yet Honors the Original )
On their first drive in July '24, they quote the final/official ratings.
Being that the Limited Tacoma (AWD hybrid) is rated at 20/24/21 and is 500# lighter, I can't see Toyota suggesting LC would get 6 MPG higher combined, 28+% ( ! ). Toyota has no record (a long one) suggesting unrealistic economy numbers, especially on their hybrids. That it is higher than lighter Tacoma is kind of amazing.

It was on the Toyota website initially for a week maybe before they removed it. I think some folks have screenshots. I saw it with my own eyes.

 

[Altitude]

Wow, I think I'm going to call B.S. on C&D. I can't yet find this on C&D website, but in Aug '23, they say: "Toyota won't release fuel-economy estimates until later this year."
( 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser Is Cool, Affordable, Yet Honors the Original )
On their first drive in July '24, they quote the final/official ratings.
Being that the Limited Tacoma (AWD hybrid) is rated at 20/24/21 and is 500# lighter, I can't see Toyota suggesting LC would get 6 MPG higher combined, 28+% ( ! ). Toyota has no record (a long one) suggesting unrealistic economy numbers, especially on their hybrids. That it is higher than lighter Tacoma is kind of amazing.

Yeah, people constantly quote Car & Driver on this particular topic, not Toyota. That article doesn’t even have a reference to a Toyota press release or quote, it’s just “a lot of people are saying.”

I don’t think Toyota ever seriously positioned the LC as a MPG goal vehicle.

 

[Markarian421]

I’m puzzled by this attempt to revise history. What’s more likely, that all of us and Car & Driver and other automotive press are suffering from the same very specific mass hallucination, or Toyota revised their numbers?

 

[Markarian421]

"The 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser may end up claiming the title for the most efficient vehicle in its class, with a manufacturer-estimated combined fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon, a figure that appears on the Japanese company’s official US website."

Toyota Estimates 27 MPG Combined For 2024 Land Cruiser

"Toyota’s consumer website reveals a manufacturer-estimated figure of 27 mpg combined for the Land Cruiser."

2024 Toyota Land Cruiser reportedly gets 27 mpg combined

Toyota Lets It Slip That 2024 Land Cruiser May Get Impressive 27 MPG Combined | Carscoops

Etc. The answers are only a Google away.

 

[Roonie]

"The 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser may end up claiming the title for the most efficient vehicle in its class, with a manufacturer-estimated combined fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon, a figure that appears on the Japanese company’s official US website."

Toyota Estimates 27 MPG Combined For 2024 Land Cruiser

"Toyota’s consumer website reveals a manufacturer-estimated figure of 27 mpg combined for the Land Cruiser."

2024 Toyota Land Cruiser reportedly gets 27 mpg combined

Toyota Lets It Slip That 2024 Land Cruiser May Get Impressive 27 MPG Combined | Carscoops

Etc. The answers are only a Google away.

Yes this was what I read in 2023 and one of the reasons I put a down payment on my first edition at that time Aug 2023. It wasn't until almost delivery and the first reviews did it change.

 

[Captain Trips]

Yes this was what I read in 2023 and one of the reasons I put a down payment on my first edition at that time Aug 2023. It wasn't until almost delivery and the first reviews did it change.

I saw it on the Toyota website also and was excited by that. I was kind of disappointed when the numbers changed, but I was not surprised.

 

[Altitude]

"The 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser may end up claiming the title for the most efficient vehicle in its class, with a manufacturer-estimated combined fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon, a figure that appears on the Japanese company’s official US website."

Toyota Estimates 27 MPG Combined For 2024 Land Cruiser

"Toyota’s consumer website reveals a manufacturer-estimated figure of 27 mpg combined for the Land Cruiser."

2024 Toyota Land Cruiser reportedly gets 27 mpg combined

Toyota Lets It Slip That 2024 Land Cruiser May Get Impressive 27 MPG Combined | Carscoops

Etc. The answers are only a Google away.

Every one of those is a press outlet reporting what Toyota did or didn’t say, and if they did say it, it was apparently a brief erroneous mention on their site that they quickly pulled down - and I’m betting whatever that was, it wasn’t an official MPG rating.

The answers might be out there with Google, but what you posted there are not answers. Just chatter.

 

[Markarian421]

Every one of those is a press outlet reporting what Toyota did or didn’t say, and if they did say it, it was apparently a brief erroneous mention on their site that they quickly pulled down - and I’m betting whatever that was, it wasn’t an official MPG rating.

The answers might be out there with Google, but what you posted there are not answers. Just chatter.

Yeah I mean it's just what Toyota said on their official web site. And didn't officially update until much later. I'm not sure why anyone would have taken it seriously. We should have asked Ford I guess?

And it also happens to be a plausible explanation for the size of the gas tank vs. the many other options we see in other markets . . .